A few days ago I posted about a blogger that anticipated great changes in this countries gun laws with the incoming Obama administration.
He noticed the traffic from my blog to his and “clarified” his position on my blog saying he respected the Second Amendment only wanted “reasonable” changes in our gun laws.
Today he tells us what he thinks are reasonable changes:
- Ban assault weapons from private possession
- Ban .50 caliber (armor piercing) weapons from private possession
- Allow local communities to determine what is appropriate for their circumstances. If cities such as Philadelphia and Washington D.C. feel that stricter gun control laws are needed than state or federal law provides, they should be allowed to govern their particular situation. The view (and conditions) from Idaho can be significantly different from major urban centers such as Chicago, LA, and NYC.
- Improve oversight of corrupt gun dealers
- Limit the number of guns an individual can purchase in a month. This will reduce the number of guns purchased with the intent to sell them illegally on the street, also known as straw purchases.
- Mandate that sales at gun shows include criminal background checks. This is a major loophole in current law.
Yes. His ignorance is showing. Please play nice as you introduce him to the realities of guns and gun law. His comments are open. Here is my first lesson:
- The definition of “assault weapon” is so ill defined and nearly always is based merely on cosmetic features, not function, that any such ban boils down to bans on guns that someone thought looked “evil” or “ugly”. Beyond that the percent of crimes committed with guns that met the definition of “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 Federal ban was so small that the weapons “feet” and “hands” are used to commit more murders each year than the banned firearms. Even if the criminal intent on using such a gun in a crime failed to find a substitute weapon and did not commit the crime that would have been enabled had they had such a weapon the drop in the crime rate would have been less than 1%. Hence any claim for an “assault weapon” ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?
- To the best of my knowledge only one .50 BMG gun has been used in the commission of a crime in the last 30 years. Hence any claim for a .50 caliber ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?
- You appear to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. I presume you also support the 13th Amendment. It then would appear the two amendments should be treated in a similar manner in their application. Hence I must conclude that you would also advocate the states and cities determine what is appropriate for their circumstances in regards application of the 13th Amendment. If I am in error on this point please correct my misunderstanding. Once we are clear on this point then I can better respond to your “reasonable” suggestion.
- I wasn’t aware there was a list of corrupt gun dealers that were lacking in oversight. If some gun dealers are known to be corrupt then they must already be in violation of some law or rule. It would seem to me that prosecution, pulling their license, or fines for violations would be more appropriate rather than “oversight”. But no matter, I am skeptical there is some large problem with gun dealers in this country. What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate I am wrong?
- Straw purchases are already illegal. How would this help? This type of law has been passed in numerous jurisdictions. Can you demonstrate any reduction in the crime rate from these restrictions?
- Sales at gun shows are no different than sales at gun dealers. Background checks are always required when you purchase from license dealers. There is no loophole. The Brady Campaign has been telling this lie for years to the point most people believe it. It is not true.
- In my first post I suggested you study and answer Just One Question before proposing more restrictions on a specific enumerated right. You do not appear to have done this. Please do so. I think the answer will dramatically affect your response.